Agreed. I thought it was pretty but I felt the movie's shortcomings were in the lack of thoughtful examination of meaningful themes and its focus on only action and excessively goofy comic relief. The visuals I think they pulled off very well.

I don't see the problem. I see lots of good discussion in this sub and the tone is generally light and respectful. I don't think it's in any danger of devolving into a circlejerk at this time. Things like this post are ok in moderation and I think this sub is doing well. Hell, even though I don't agree that we're turning into a circlejerk, I still liked your reaction GIF. :)

I was reading this with the assumption that it was going to be something bemoaning how bad this subreddit had become. And thought it strange for a moment that the percentages you listed seemed so reasonable.

Took me awhile to reconcile the fact that not everyone is out to demean the people they are talking to on reddit.

My wonderful friends of r/startrek: For the record, I do not hate JJ Abrams or his awesome movies. I own Star Trek (2009), the entire comic series, and I recently drove 2 hours to the closest IMax just to see the 9 minute preview (had to smirk at the still abundant lens flare) Isn't it possible to love something yet still poke fun at it? I'm not really offended by all these comments, but jeeze, post a little joke poking fun at him and suddenly I hate JJ and new Trek? Relax, guys. It's a joke, and a very unoriginal one, apparently.

Yes. I don't think anyone's shitting on you for making a joke about a subject you love, I'm fairly positive that you're getting shit on for making arguably the most over used and abused quip on /r/startrek. You could have thrown a few "le"s in there, put it against a bi-coloured background, and titled this post "My face when..." or "Directing Level: JJ Abrams" and the post wouldn't have been any triter.

Right. The problem isn't that it's a joke, the problem is that it's a joke that's been run into subspace.

I remember the trailer came out and everyone loved it. Then everyone hated it because of the lens flare. Then the movie came out and everyone loved it. Then the honeymoon ended and people took to complaining about everything, including the lens flare. Then it was the low hanging fruit on /r/startrek, then it moved to /r/scifi, then to /r/movies, and then back again to /r/startrek. Then it went meta, and people started complaining about the people complaining about the lens flare, and how their criticism ended at "OMG LENS FLARE" and that there's nothing inherently wrong with lens flare. Then it went double meta and people were complaining about the people who were complaining about the people who were complaining because if the lens flare was so overwhelming that it spawned a whole fleet of bad jokes that it is distracting and therefore it was inherently bad.

Then I downed a fifth of Romulan Ale and when I woke up I saw your post complaining about lens flare, as if all of a sudden it was November 2008 again and the theatrical trailer for the first one just came out.

So, yeah. Sorry if we jumped down your throat, but we're sick of the lens flare jokes.

I never interpreted it as hate. I had issues with the movie but I thought it was gorgeous. When I make cracks about the lens flares, it's in the same spirit that I make cracks about redshirts' life expectancy. It's just one of those tropes that Trek overdid to a point that its humorous to me. No malice there.

Because the footage of the sequels we have seen so far is full of them. It's a ridiculous, overused technique and it annoys a lot of people. I get that it doesn't bother you but you aren't the only person who is out there.

90% of all science fiction trailers are lens flare this year. Watching the previews before The Hobbit, I had to put on sunglasses. Not literally, but since Trek is a large commercial enterprise and not a fan baby, you can generally expect to see things like explosions, sexy ladies, and lens flares on the adverts at least. It's what gets young new people to say, "hey I like Star Trek," and attempts to put it on the same cultural level as Star Wars. When the new Star Wars movie comes out, see if it isn't all lens flares, boobies, and explosions.

This is what pisses me off is that most people fail to realize that it's not that he "loves" lensflare, it's that Abrams has a lot of things to accomplish here:

He has to UPDATE a fan-loved set that was supposed to be "futuristic" in 1966. BUT, he has to update it in such a way that it still looks like it's the Enterprise, and NOT piss off all of the fanboys!

Seriously, everyone, ask yourself: How would YOU have updated the Bridge? Remember, this is the NCC 1701, NOT Bloody A, B, C or D.

So, it has to look futuristic, and it has to look like a set made popular in the 1960's. It's a kinda bland set when you merge the two, so lensflares are the compromise he made to make the set visually interesting.

But I guess most people would prefer bad 1960's special effects instead? Or at least that's what it sounds like from all the complaining.

Do you get angry when a redshirt dies? It's a little quirk that's a bit overdone and we make jokes about it. Does that mean we're angry?

That being said, Abrams has actually addressed the flares in interviews. He basically admits he may have overdone it but he was having fun making a Star Trek movie and its easy to get carried away. His attitude toward it made me smile and I'm pretty sure he'll tone it down a bit this time.

HILARIOUS! This joke was so funny on every trailer and news post for the past 6 months I am so glad that it has it's own post now. All we need is a separate post for the BWWAAA noise and this sub will be complete.

That's not the point. Anyone willing to give us new Star Trek, be it Abrams or whoever else it will be in the future, simply won't want to deal with the obnoxious condescension that a select number of "fans" like to spout off about.

I love Star Trek. I've been a long time fan. But Trek as we've known it is DEAD. Maybe you'd be happy with another Star Trek Insurrection or Star Trek Enterprise?

Doohan is dead. Kelley is dead. Soon, one day, Nimoy, Shatner, and the rest will all be dead. Should Star Trek just sit and rot on a shelf just because it doesn't meet with your approval?

Say what you will about Abrams, but he was the ONLY person able to convince Nimoy to play Spock once again. It's sad enough we'll never see many of the actors again in the roles we've enjoyed, but we got one last Nimoy as Spock adventure!

You may not like Abrams Trek, and that's your right, but it's really ignorant and stupid to ignore all the good points about 2009's Trek and instead whine on and on about fucking lens-flares like it's the end of the world. Enough. We fucking get it. Abrams has already stated he's minimizing them in the sequel, and now people are bitching in other threads asking where are the lens-flares?

You do not speak for everyone. A lot of people loved Abrams Trek, they just don't come to reddit to post about it.

I've ran into so many people who bash on JJTrek until you actually ask them what was wrong with the movie, then the best they can do is complain about lens flare or the way the inside of the ship looked. They seem to hate is purely because it's not exactly like Star Trek used to be, but they can't articulate that so they pick on the most inconsequential of design details.

Thanks! It's really sad how people keep using the downvotes to silence those they disagree with. Censorship isn't part of the Trek philosophy, so I think a lot of these "fans" don't truly get it.

A lot of people are done with Trek. I highly doubt you'll ever get Nicholas Meyer back to direct. Nimoy will never direct another Trek.

So, who's left? Why should anyone get involved with Trek if they have to face the hateful fanboy brigade? If not Abrams, WHO would people have preferred had resurrected Star Trek? Would people have preferred a total hack instead? Would people have been happier with Uwe Boll, or Zach Snyder? This is precisely why the new Star Wars Episode 7 is being turned down by a lot of talented directors, most notably Spielberg who had wanted to direct one of the OT movies. Most people are not willing to invest their time and energy for years on a project when there is so much negativity from the fans.

Abrahms is rubbing his cock all over Gene's legacy. No ST shouldn't just die out, as you propose, but it should at least keep its integrity and purpose for existence instead of turning into a thoughtless, fashionable, Vin Diesel movie.

The "new" star trek lacks all philosophy that Gene Roddenberry created and cared about maintaining. The philosophy and message is what made it what it is, look at TNG for a perfect example. That was the entire fucking point! There are many many many many many people that feel the same way and most of us will still see the movie not because we like it but because maybe one day it'll get its brains back.

This though, is shit. It's just a mainstream action movie now. Lens flare here, naked girl there, explosion here, and a generic plot arch created for entertaining people with no attention span. To enjoy this movie I have to know nothing of ST and/or have ADHD. The new Trek lacks any subtle layers, meaning, and substance.

I don't speak for everyone but the demographic is shifting and turning ST into something it is not and should not ever be.

You do realize how different TNG is from TOS right? You also understand the difference between movies and television right?

There are going to be differences. There is just no way around it, period. As I said, Trek as we have known it is dead. Most of the TOS movies were still different that the TOS TV show.

Abrams isn't "rubbing his cock all over Gene's legacy". That's just fanatical bullshit.

HOW do you propose we bring Trek back to it's roots? Show another interracial kiss? Show how bad racism is or slavery is? Show how in the future minorities and women are considered equal? Just so you know, it's no longer the 60's and these are now considered normal instead of groundbreaking as it was in the 60's.

Do we really need another preachy environmental movie like Avatar, or Star Trek Insurrection or ST4?

Sorry, but Gene's philosophy was terribly short-sighted and self-contradictory. He believed we wouldn't need money, and yet they still had to use money in many episodes, and they said there was no conflict among the crew, and yet Kirk wasn't very nice to his crew, and Spock and McCoy always argued. In fact, the first 2 seasons of TNG sucked because of Gene and because he would not allow conflict among the crew. It was a HUGE point of contention among the writers and didn't improve until Gene got ill and started stepping back in season 3.

It is patently unfair to judge any new Trek based on what has come before. TOS had the luxury of letting us get to know the characters over 3 seasons before they went to movies, and TNG had 7 seasons before they went to movies. New Trek has to start from almost scratch, just reusing concepts and character names, all with new faces and introducing them to an entirely new generation of people unfamiliar with Star Trek. Plus, Trek MUST appeal to the general public, not just fans, in order to make the kind of money Paramount needs to make with these films. It was the financial flop of Nemesis that killed TNG, fans alone were not enough to sustain it financially.

So, you need to realize you can't get everything your way. I'm sorry that a "naked girl" in Abrams Trek (Who showed less skin than Uhura in ST5), along with generic plot arcs (Search for Spock, Insurrection, Hell, even Wrath of Khan was a bit of a generic revenge tale wasn't it?) or explosions (gee, never had an explosion in a Trek movie before 2009, right?) is such a bad thing.

Maybe instead they can just let a girl fly the ship and crash it like in Generations, or ram the enemy ship like in Nemesis. That would be better, right?

Do we really need another preachy environmental movie like Avatar, or Star Trek Insurrection or ST4?

Uhhh fuck yeah dude. The point of ST TNG is to present a sci-fi original that is unlike any other. Filled with action, adventure, mytery, and substantial meaningful philosophical undertones.

It is patently unfair to judge any new Trek based on what has come before.

Not really. If my favorite musician releases a new album sure you have to allow a little leeway for growth but I will still be disappointing if it turns out to be a piece of shit I don't want to listen to.

Not really. If my favorite musician releases a new album sure you have to allow a little leeway for growth but I will still be disappointing if it turns out to be a piece of shit I don't want to listen to.

Your favorite musician is either dead or retired in this case. Best you can hope for is the cover band doesn't fuck it up too bad.

Kinda like 2009's Star Trek by JJ Abrams had? You complained before about explosions, but now you admit you want action. Nobody's going to be able to make you happy. You might as well clutch your precious unaltered VHS tapes of older Star Treks and cry yourself to sleep.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about that latest Indiana Jones. The fridge thing and the vine swinging were cringeworthy but at least I got to see Indy and Marion together again and Indy wreck a college campus running from Soviet agents on a motorcycle, and people being consumed by giant ants.

Wow... I don't buy a lot of physical stuff so I never thought about those ancillary benefits. Good point! I just like that it keeps it alive. It'll never be like it was when we were younger but at least it isn't gone.

Speak for yourself. With out Abrams, Star Trek would still be a dead franchise. Abrams brought it back from the grave, modernized it, and made the most successful Star Trek movie EVER. Now, thanks to him, there is even talk of a new Star Trek TV Show being born.

I'm usually glad they cancel my favorite shows when they do because if they hadn't it would turn to shit, like this. Now it's just being dragged out for monetary purposes. The legacy is getting shit on, I wish the franchise had just died compared to being cheapened and turned into a brainless action movie with little substance and a weak plot.